You sifted out the gnat but gulped down the camel.
Excuses do not equal answers, particularly if they are nothing more than abstract conjecture, without foundation or credibility, hence the questions still stand.
But here is one for you, why do up to 58% of so called religious people fail to live up to the doctrine of their religion yet 100% of atheists fail to live up to their atheist doctrine?
@SonofThunder120 Locate me this atheist doctrine and I will tell you. Atheists don't even have to believe evolution is true. If you're a "non-astrologer" for example, that means you don't believe in astrology. This doesn't give any insight in to what that person does believe. You can't say, well since you don't believe in astrology, you must like to gamble, or you have to like sushi.
Make up some more incoherent questions and perhaps all humor you with a response.
@J0shReed Erm, it seems you cannot answer any of the questions posed thus far, perhaps I will have to condescend to your level and approach you with a Janet & John type logic.
Atheism by implication leads to evolution, there exists no other option. Its either intelligent design or evolution.
So here is my Janet & John question for you please explain the "Cambrian explosion?"
No matter how much airfreshener you spray on feces, it remains feces & will like feces in a short while
@SonofThunder120 I'm quite certain I answered all of your questions (if you can call them that). Simply saying I didn't doesn't win you any points friend.
Because theories on it are in the infant stage we must accept god as the answer? Surely in history we have never been baffled by a problem only to have the answer revealed in time. (Dramatic Gasp!)
I take it back, you're right. It's so obvious now. The only reasonable explanation is that Wotan did it. Thank you.
I don't have really many objections to the theory of a deistic view other than it's not really necessary. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sorry by the way that studying for complete knowledge of everything science has ever said is a little bit harder than studying for god's science test which the answer is just "god did it" for all questions. I'm obviously the lazy one.
@SonofThunder120 Also, evidence? all you have done is attack counter evidence. You haven't used any positive evidence at all. Things look designed because they were designed, over billions of years by explorable natural processes.
Your argument is because science doesn't know something, god is the only answer to that. Ha! the Cambrian layer is an unusual phenomena! Check mate! God exists!
The hypotheses for the origin and complexity of the genetic code are to long to explain on youtube. Open any general college Biology textbook and you will get a primer on abiogenesis and the hypotheses that involve the topic. They also explain some experiments that support them, there's much more in other sources btw. Even the Cambrian Explosion is explained in the average modern bio textbook.
And what design is there in the fact that DNA replication isn't 100% error-proof?
@SonofThunder120 It has something to do with that people are pattern-seeking animals. When for an example the wind blows and you hear whistling of a bush, you might think that there is a predator in it, moving around trying to kill you. You will then naturally respond to it even when it is false. And if there really was an predator and you survived - you will automatically be more careful, but also your mind will be more easily deluded next time it occurs. Watch Shermer on TED
I can't believe how many comments I've seen saying that Lennox won the "Has Science Buried God?" debate with Dawkins - he was absolutely outperformed by far in that debate. Lennox is however one of the only people other than WLC who I seen give Hitchens a bit of a decent fight back. Clearly he's a very smart guy. I couldn't be bothered watching the rest of this debate though - Shermer just isn't as good to listen to as Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins, although he seems like a decent guy.
it is interesting that many of the questions are directed to Lennox, instead of Shermer. perhaps because they know nothing can be discussed by atheism worldview. This also show that people, no matter what they believe in, are hoping for an answer for the thing they struggle with.
Lennox, Like William Lame Craig, understands that if you make a big enough pile of steaming logical fallacies they will eventually collapse and drown rational people in an oozing mudslide of stupid.
I cannot believe the stream of utter inanities spewing from Lennox's mouth. Has he no shame?
i have never seen lennox debate before and i was really excited, given his credentials. i am very disappointed that his arguments are recycling the same stock arguments with emotional appeal that less well informed religious people have already put forth (and have been dunked time and time again).
And that's the reality of anyone who debates on the side of theism -- the only resource they can depend upon are straw man fallacies and emotional appeal. There is no definite truth behind any of their arguments -- IN FACT GET THIS: every single SOUND, VALID argument stated by an atheist is AVOIDED by the theist because they simply can't argue against solid facts
Here's the straw man: Lennox distorts Shermer's argument to make it seem as if Shermer was saying this instead: God doesn't exist because science doesn't prove it. -- Then Lennox goes off explaining how SOMETHING must have created this universe because it's too complex to explain and that it MUST be God because that's what all of the "holy" scriptures say and a plethora of random, probably unreliable people say- THIS EXACT ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING THAT SHERMER HAD DISPROVED IN HIS SPEECH -Straw man
WHICH argument was a straw man you mean? You want someone to cite it? Okay here you go: The Great Debate: Lennox vs Shermer 3/10 from 0:00 - 9:56. Shermer's MAIN argument was that God is NOT an explanation for everything we don't know -- in fact there are many different ways to explain how we got where we are and the idea of "God" does NOT have any more plausibility than the idea of multiple universes or the idea of being created by an alien species far more intelligent than we are
Great, philosophers from hundreds of years ago and thousands of years ago with little scientific knowledge is somehow helping your argument? 85% of Australians believe in a god? 100% of ancient greeks believed in Thor? So what? People believe what they want. This guy is all emotional evidence, aka nothing.
Didn't Dr. Shermer admit the possibility of an infinitely powerful being, with, remember, INFINITE, power over the material? Infinite power? "Well, yeah, that'll be us."
How do you know that someone didn't evolve there first?
Dr. Shermer, Mormon apologist and emissary to the secular world.
Re: his diatribe about morality. Again, there is plenty of evidence that this has evolved in us through evolution (in our genes) as well as our environment. It's not purely genes, it's not purely environment; it's a combo. You still don't need a god. The free-will argument though is a complicated one.
Hmm, so at one point the vast majority of people believed the earth was flat. So citing that 81% of australians believe in god, is no evidence that god exists.
Why is the word of one religious-minded scientist taken against the word of millions of scientists with a common consensus of opinion against that stance? Creationists do this every time and think they have something significant...
@andygray ......he uses them and proves them to be good arguments. You shouldn't attack his debating skills just because you disagree with his views. It causes your side of the argument to lose credibility.
@flamencodpv What is my side? I just said that Lennox is a poor debater. As as Christian I would like to see a bit more intelligence used to debate an intelligent atheist like Shermer his arguments fail massively and do a disservice to anyone who believes in Christianity
@andygray ....I made the assumption you backed the claims made by Shermer, so my bad. However, I still take exception to your claim that Lennox is a poor debater. He is actually fielding a great majority of the questions from audience members wishing to stump him while Shermer sits back and chimes in with a quip every so often. I'd say he did all the work and a good job at that.
@andygray how is lennox a poor debator? Im not atheist but if I was I would feel really stupid being one after hearing lennox talk. At the very least it would make me be agnostic. He leaves atheism with no ground to stand on and I see dawkins floundering about like a fish in a net when he debated lennox.
@andygray Indeed your problem in this critique is that Shermer's casual dismissal was totally unwarranted.
It's actually juvenile. Another version of 'I knew you would say that!' It's not an argument. One of the usual Atheist rhetorical mistakes is to simply say, 'oh those things are rubbish, we all know that!'
The fact is the arguments from complexity, meaning, beauty, morality ARE valid arguments.
One would have to be blinded by their own misguided world view in order to deny the overwhelming fact that this world is designed and that designer is the Lord Jesus. Who created all things for Himself.
For the truth about religion try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life ' or John W. Loftus or Victor J. Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' . Also interesting to have a look at the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani, with its god Osiris who weighs the heart to decide who can pass to the land of the living.[ The need to know the names of the gods & the negative confession & other magic texts to get there]. James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'
Lennox, let me use your own bible to answer your moral questions " Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial " this includes torture... its permissible as noone including life/god doesn't step in to stop it. But its not beneficial to the person being torturted or us humanity. We must determine that, and in many ways we have but years ago we never and torture was part of life ( look at old england ) morals have evolved!
@Hektor7788 Atheism is myth, superstition and a lot of bullshit. I'm assuming this statement really annoyed you and that you're thinking "this guys is an idiot." I don't think you're an idiot, but your prior statement was uncalled for. Your statement doesn't encourage discussion, but rather, shuts the door to open debate.
@jensenc86 You are assuming wrong. I dont know you, so i dont know if you are an idiot. You are probably a great person. I still think religion is all that. You can believe in God or gods and not be religious.
@jensenc86 a set of common beliefs and practices pertaining to the supernatural (and its relationship to humanity and the cosmos). Its a way some people have of explaining this world.
It's interesting to see the Lennox is doing exactly what Shermer said you have to do. Put forth a number of amazing things and attribute not only to a god but his god. Not only that, he uses the placeholder "supernatural." Then he appeals to authority by referencing nobel-price winners. Also, correlates the progress of science with a personal religion. Does the genius of Newton validate alchemy?
Is Lennox saying that ignorant tribal bigotted people of over 2500 years ago used reason and their senses to understand "the given" that a deity exists??? That's the most idiotic opening I have ever heard! Guess they used the same senses and reason to determine disease are devils inhabiting our bodies and earthquakes are gods fighting among themselves or just ticked off that we have offended them in some way. It's scary that he could literally go back in time and fit in with their beliefs!
@Spunn3d this is such a shallow argument - the Catholic church has long being infiltrated by homosexuals and pedophiles - If you are an atheist you should love them -atheism has no problem with this vile unatural behaviour - the question you should ask is were these people obeying Christ or disobeying? Christ himself said if any should cause those little ones to go astray it would be better for a stone to put around the the neck of the perpetrator and him being thrown in the sea. Jesus wins
Lennox is proof that emotional blind spots, fear, early childhood indoctrination, and wishful thinking can make someone who may otherwise be brilliant come off like a total putz. His argument comes down "doesn't everything seem so complex, beautiful, and meaningful to you fellow primates? well then god must exist and plenty of other notable primates agree!"
I use the term primate to emphasize that complexity, meaning, etc in the context of this debate are entirely subjective.
@MrShysterme That's interesting that you should use a little g meaning any number of gods, i was referring to shooting arrows at the one God, the one Dawkins, Hitchens and the likes must try and kill at all costs.
@purpleduke77 How can I tell you why someone else does something? How could they "destroy faith in God" (especially an omnipotent one if it exists)? Do you want me to simply come up with a plausible speculation? Okay. How about they see faith as inferior to reason in how it inevitably affects society as a result of individual actions? How about they want to show that atheism is at least as reasonable (and likely more so) then theism so that people have additional thought choices?
How can you tell why someone else does something? Well then, how can you tell anything about a persons genuine faith? If your Gonna couple say a Gahndi or mother Thereasa with the 9/11 hyjackers or islamic fundamentalists then youve ended all possible debate. Do you mind if i lump you in with all the atrocoties that have been commited by atheists?
@purpleduke77 Huh? Because people will sometimes tell you about their faith? Did I lump anyone in with anything? No. Dude, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you are dumb as a box of fucking rocks. Now piss off and go stick a piece of broken glass in your asshole.
Some people might have told u about their faith but I and many others havent told you anything about ours? yes you have lumped us together by stating our faith is "inferior to reason in how it inevitibly affects society" You oviuosly must be the lower end of the evolutionary scale probably just below an ameba, you cant even enter into a debate without resorting to abusive laguage, you told me to piss off yet it was you who first messaged me. Your a typical atheist, ur brains r in ur bolox.
@purpleduke77 I was speaking of faith as a concept, meaning belief without evidence.Your faith, as you put it, is your particular theological pattern which is not at all what I meant and that should have been obvious to a thinking person. I messaged you to tell you that you are wrong, and then you proceeded in like fashion. People like you who are incapable of realizing when you are wrong deserve to be treated roughly. A final question: does an all-knowing god know what my semen tastes like?
True faith isn't just a concept its more real and solid, its a deep conviction of the soul, my faith is not a theological pattern as u have took the liberty to describe, dont analize me with ur science. You messaged me to tell me im wrong, what if your wrong? Does an all knowing god know what semen tastes like? i wouldnt know there's thousands of them., but i do know that God knows what ever we know and you must know what semen tastes like so he must he, God knows every cock sucker.
@purpleduke77 Some words have several meanings.You tell the appropriate one via context or by asking.In this case the definition I was using was obvious, and then I further corrected you on this point. If you redefine a word and then continue on with that definition, then we are not talking about the same thing whatsoever.Therefore, whatever you say is beside the point.Even within your definition of faith,your deep conviction is based on no actual evidence,just emotion.
@purpleduke77 This is very important information. God knows what every vagina on earth feels like as well. Wow, what a lucky deity. Ever think this is the reason for his creation?
richard dawkins saids that there moste be intelligence design???never, and over my dead body he had never say that , lennox is liying where does he take that from
Is there anything relevant at all to what this man has said in this video clip? Where is the focus of his opening statements? He's all over the place "because we have this, thats prooof of god. "Because this guy said that, thats proof for god." This guy hasn't said anything with substance for almost 10 minutes. Matter a fact, Shermer's opening statement debunks everything this lost mind had said during the whole debate. It's just pathetic.
@Cynicleese Absolutely not what he said at all. 7:39 "You don't believe you're hearing this stuff time and time again." I don't believe you listened to this at all.
It's my belief, that before Atheists have these discussions with believers, the believers need to decide which among them is really right. As soon as that's done, we can have a discussion.
self-deluding 'rationalized' irrationally is SO disgusting that words fail - over and over ... (skip this screed and move on the actual expression of an actual thought)
I'm struck by how easy Dr. Shermer was to listen to and understand, and immediately how much more effort is required to follow Lennox. Lennox is in the first 3 minutes already sounding like he is preaching.
@trstenik100 - Ironic. You just provided a simple explanation for something that is complicated. No wonder your an athiest. You cannot even understand simple things.
The moment our mind respons we are off the road...because our mind cannot respond to the Gods given reality..mind sees already an illusion and from this illusion creates more illusion...that is the sad plight of every man...
@Cynicleese and most atheists think that apparently being religous means you're some kind of evil, retrograd, ignorant, delusional bigot who's willing to burn everyone who disagrees with him, and supports a belief that apparently has caused every tragedy in the world. You don't believe you're hearing this stuff time and time again.
If youre gonna talk about falling back on straw men, check the internet atheists first, specially the youtube ones.
@Cynicleese and for most atheists, being religous means you're some kind of ignorant delusional bigot who discriminates against people who don't agree with his beliefs and is incapable of reasoning at all.
if you're gonna talk about falling back on straw men, check the internet atheist first, especially the youtube ones.
The word "evidence" actually means something. You can't just define it any way you want. Feelings and experiences are not, by definition, "evidence." Neither, contrary to many opinions, is hear-say.
Lennox's entire repertoire of 'evidence' is revolved around the thoughts & opinions of other people. The philosophers he quotes were ended up being wrong on some of their theories, & while they were great scientific minds theyre human & their opinions are not fact.
As for the Nobel Prize winner... the Nobel Peace Prize has lost much of its asthetic value of recent, especially when Obama won it just after reigniting an continually illegal war.
As opposed to Shermer, who did not use ANY credible references? I find it perplexing that you would deny Lennox's statement, rich with logical, historical, scientific and theological citations; and instead affirm Shermer's statement. Shermer's argument consisted of a few intellectually inaccurate jokes, a portion on the multiverse theory (itself lacking any 'evidence') and ended by suggesting that God cannot be God because people's arms don't grow back. Shermer's opener was cringeworthy.
Shermer was the first one that went, I think you're confusing the two. Surely, you don't think that this man's opening statements were anything you claimed them to be. Rich with logical, historical, and scientific citations? The bible is rich of proven historical events and scientific evidence? The bible? It's obvious you are bias against the intelligent and rationale.
@mrbenderson005 if I may conclude: If you don't consider ANY external thoughts and opinions as evidence; how can you think that anything outside of your own existence is true? - including anything historical, or scientific that you haven't discovered for yourself.
We rely on the thoughts of others in order to discern what is true based on how it relates to other thoughts, logic and ultimately (if you are a theist) the word of God. You cannot define objective truth as a stand alone human entity.
@aantoine1 Your logic is fallacious. Consider a respected judge who felt that a suspect was guilty, and since people value his/her opinion, they all feel the suspect guilty too. But despite how he feels, the lawyers provide evidence proving that he is infact innocent of the crime charged. When it comes to figuring out who's guilty, the judge's opinion could not have meant less, because it was not backed by any substantial evidence...
@aantoine1 ...Once upon a time all of the world's most respected opinions were that the world was flat and that colored people were 3/4 human, and they were dead wrong.
Evidence requires fact, reason, or some tangible way of measuring a given premise. An opinion lacking these things merits no value with respect to evidence, & even an interpretation based on evidence still is not as important as the evidence itself.
Lennox lacked even interpretation based on evidence so he turned to opinion
@mrbenderson005 You've completely misunderstood what I've said and I apologize if my original comment wasn't clear. Although I do find your statement that my "logic is fallacious" a little harsh and misguided, especially considering that your counter 'judge' argument is in essence exactly the same as my original post i.e. - you cannot define truth based on your own thought; you need a law and evidence presented by others in order to make a judgement.
@mrbenderson005 Furthermore, I cannot see why you needed to stress that "all opinion once thought the earth was flat" - i found this VERY patronizing, not to mention historically incorrect; and even though this is WAY off topic, i would like to point out that as far back as ancient greek philosophy man suggested the earth was spherical. I agree with you when you say that evidence requires fact and reason and based on these factors I found Lennox's argument a lot more persuasive.
@mrbenderson005 Finally I would just like to say that historical documentation is considered fact - you mediate it the same you would any other science. This topic is a lot larger than youtube, but I would like to say that if you are only looking for material evidence to make a conclusive decision, then you are going to find a lot of contradictions in your thinking - at least consider looking at the ontological. I don't disregard your right to an opinion and I respect your desire to voice it.
hes not actually committing an appeal to authority fallacy... he is just reading evidence with good credentials. there is a huge difference people... should he have read evidence from some christian person with no credentials, you would have blasted that... because you have a predisposition against this guy, anything he says will be pure crap to you...
@DaGavinX Wow! You didn't even understand this either. Incredible. Not only is Lennox familiar with Dawkins books, but they also taught in the same facilities. Not only does Lennox understand the metaphor, he was making one of his own. Do you make a habit of shooting yourself in the foot, or is this a new thing for you?
@lamuziq He is familiar with fallacies, that's for sure; with Dawkins books, he doesn't seem to be. He quote mined Dawkins, by taking his "selfish genes" analogy and attacking it as if it were a moral philosophy, which it isn't. Anyways, comparing an avalanche to genes makes no sense. I really doubt he read the book if that is all he understood about it.
You should watch the video again, but pay attention this time. ;)
@DaGavinX Exactly the point. He was attacking the lack of moral philosophy. Given your statements below I'm not shocked you missed this point as well. It's incredible watching atheists struggle to discuss topics that are so overwhelming beyond their grasp they are left with false truisms and blatant lies.
It's amazing that Lennox doesn't realizes the amount of strawmans he uses when he attacks "the new atheists". Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't imply a moral philosophy which every atheist would have to follow. It's very easy to understand.
There are some interesting debates between theists and atheists about morality here in YT, you should watch those, if you haven't already.
@DaGavinX Are you joking? Even Richard Dawkins says that - Anyone who knows the antiquity > alchemy > chemistry, et cetera. of science (ie' the origins of science) knows that it came from religion and most of all The Bible. Do your history before you question someone who clearly is more well versed on the subject. Not to mention The Bible is responsible for making more people literate then every other book on earth combined....Teaching people mathematics, language, writing, philosophy, etc.
@lamuziq Yeah, there isn't a shred of science in the bible. Show mathematics in the bible and a may believe you. alchemy, in the bible? where? I'm not saying the bible is useless, but that it isn't the origin of science nor a decent attempt at it.
Other cultures, advanced those topics you mentioned (mathematics, language, etc...) way before the bible was written so people didn't need the bible to learn those things.
You should do your history before saying that to others.
@DaGavinX Holy crap....I can't even wrap my head around some peoples stupidity. It's so obvious you've never read The Bible, let alone, taken a course on theology. If you didn't know there is mathematics, alchemy, philosophy and science in The Bible then there is no point in talking to you. Not to mention I never said it was the origin of math, that's the Babylonians and Egyptians. I've done plenty of reading on the subject, clearly, you have not. It's sad listening to someone spread such crap.
@lamuziq Again, you have to pay attention. Lennox said that the bible (specifically the creation story) was the origin of science. That's what bothered me.
Probably if a took a course in theology I could see statistical thermodynamics in the bible.
Hey, he was nobel prize winner! A nobel pirze!!! so he's right.
No bigger fallacy than argument by authority. Plain pathetic. But, since we''re in that line of thought, make a survey about all scientific nobel prize winners and their theological position. The overwhelming majority are agnostic and atheist. Do we bring that up? No, because it isn't an argument. It's not important for this discussion. this guy's a joke!
While Anthony Flew abandoned atheism he has vacillated on his position more than once. He specifically stated he has no use for Christianity and doesn't believe in the Christian God. If anything he has embraced a deist god. He also has admitted to NOT keeping up on the latest scientific understandings of the origin of the universe. His "de conversion" from atheism seems to be a rather impotent argument for the existence of god. But nice try Lennox.
'Tis the problem in the use of selected writings as "revelation" in arguments. You simply do a high school statistical analysis & the Christian God = Zeus. And if you moved into the more complex, "regression" arguments, it is pure gibberish. "I didn't say it; God said it. He said he has always existed; and that he created everything; it's stated HERE in this Holy Text." Just 4 year-old arguments, when caught fighting. "I didn't do any thing. He started first!"
Lennox doesn't do very well here. Appeals to authority and some irrelevant points. He's much better suited to debating Dawkins (probably why he refers to him so much here). I'd like to hear Shermer talk with a more qualified mind.
" But its a matter of which Religion to agree with more."
Sure, but your biases of what religion your parents are and what country you grew up in and other influences that will shape your idea of what religion to be a part of has literally no baring on the actual truth of that religion. You are still taking a gamble with hell, so it is silly to pose that to Atheists as if you are not in the same boat as us. That was why I found the original statement so ludicrous.
God literally instructs many people to kill babies in the First Testament.... that does not sound like a charcter who cares about a child's innocoence, especially since the bible clearly states that babies are born NOT innocoent in the first place. It sounds like you are the one who does not know your bible.
(contd) would have any leaniency on young children? We are talking about a deity who would TORTURE GOOD PEOPLE FOR ETERNITY in brutal and sick and disgusting ways.... why would you trust him to have any leniency on children, especially when the bible does not say he would? I think that is your own morality at work, morality you do not take from the bible, and I agree with it, only it is not scripturally accurate.
"I'm not basing my religion off of its consequences."
Then why are you making the suggestion that it is foolish to risk going to hell by me being an Atheist? You are simply appealing to the idea of belief out of fear. I am not misunderstanding you, I am just confused as to why you would bring up hell as a deterrent for non-belief, if you were not represnting it as a primary reason for why one should not be an Atheist. I also just debunked Pascal's wager so it's silly when people bring it up.
@MrUsername5678888 I am not represnting hell as an objective matter for accepting Christianity. I am considering it as a subjective matter. Christianity isn't one of fear and anxiety and so forth, but accepting the Biblical scripture as truth, and knowing thereof about God and his works. Subjectivally, Hell seems important. I think it just strengthens my faith a bit to know that if Christianity IS all-truthful, then I will nto be going to hell.
"Why take the chance if Christianity is true? Burn in hell forever or ..."
Your point was simple. It requires no further explanation. You seem to have missed my point however whilst you were giving Pascal's wager. Why take the chance if Islam is true? If they are right YOU will burn in hell forever, as a Christian. I am assuming you are not going to become a Muslim just in case, but my point is that we are all in danger of hellfire, you as much as I. So your original comment was dumb.
@MrUsername5678888 This is true, but you cannot be two religions, friend. So, I guess it WAS a neutral statement to the point of probability. But its a matter of which Religion to agree with more.
@koolio669 Also, the bible is very clear that all babies are born wicked with original sin. I do not think that your god would consider wicked sinful humans to be innocent by his own standards, so why would he take pity on them?
@koolio669 So if Christians are wrong and the Muslims are right, Christians are going to burn forever in hell, writhing in everlasting pain. That doesn't sound like a chance you should take either.... I think it is pathetic if your best reason for belief is cowardly bet-hedging, and it is pathetic that human beings can be reduced to basing their entire lives on a fear of something that has nothing to support it's existence.
@MrUsername5678888 My reason for being a Christian is not out of fear or anxiety and so forth. And I was pretty much just saying this: Why take the chance if Christianity is true? Burn in hell forever or ...well, whatever Atheists believe after death. I'm not basing my religion off of its consequences.
@koolio669 You also seem to forget that if the Christians are correct, not only every Atheist will be eternally tortured, but every Jew, every Hindu, every Muslim, every Taoist, every Deist, and all of those men and women's little innocent children and babies... and this is all assuming you picked the correct SECT of the Christian faith. What if the Mormons are right? What if the Catholics are right? What if Jehova's witnesses are right? It's a situation where you are almost guaranteed screwed!
@MrUsername5678888 I'm quite sure that God will grant amnesty to infants and children. 'Correct sect of Christianity'. Well I can pick some out of the basket, such as Catholicism, which is completely corrupt as to its interpretations of the Bible. The Mormons belief? Quite idiotic when compared to the Bible, and not the one they self-edited. Jehova's witness is also in the same catagory of corruption; evidence by their fallacious misunderstandings of the religion.
@koolio669 Where in the bible does it say that infants and children instantly go to heaven? They are technically Atheists themselves. In fact, every baby ever born, including you, was born an ATHEIST... they do not believe in a god. Can you counter that? From what you say you think that Catholics and Mormons and Jehovas witnesses are corrupt morons.... is there any Christian that you do agree with? I am sure they think the same of you, by the way.
@MrUsername5678888 No baby born is any religion. An infant does not have the mental capacity to make its own choices on such ideas and therefore cannot be held to account of said things. And on the topic of the different denominations, Protestant is seemingly the most accurate biblically. I do indeed disagree with Catholics, and Mormons, and they disagree with me. But if you knew anything about the Bible, you would agree with me that the Heresy of these denom.'s, Biblically speaking is great.
@koolio669 "No baby born is any religion." Exactly, they fit the definition of an Atheist: one who does not believe in a god. You say an infant does not have the mental capacity to make it's own choices, yet you still have not pointed out the passage in the bible that says they are not going to go to hell if they die as an infant or toddler or even a 4 year old. Why would you think that a god who would eternally torture mothers of children who were good people, just not Protestant,
why do we need absolute morals to uphold any kind of morality?
niinja2 1 day ago
Religion has always tried to suppress science - even today in stemcell research.
Funny if not sad that lennox try to claim for christianity.
neuromatiker 1 month ago
1) Why did evolution create the delusion?
2) Why has evolution not removed the delusion?
3) Is attacking the God delusion an attack on the delusion created by evolution?
4) Why has evolution evolved to study itself?
5) If we are around for 80 years at best, why waste time with evolution?
6) If evolution is true, is man made law an abstact concept?
7) Law, therefor is a delusion too, so by implication, is rape, theft murder and so on merely acts of evolution and survival of the fittest?
SonofThunder120 2 months ago
@SonofThunder120
1) Evolution doesn't 'do' anything on purpose. It is not conscious
2) Evolution doesn't 'do' anything on purpose. It is not conscious
3) Perhaps, but there is nothing to be offended
4) Mere probability
5) Why waste time on math, or reading the bible?
6) Yes. Objective morals are very scary. If we still followed the bible's morals then we would still have slaves
7) Law is a consensus, backed by genetically driven emotions of guilt, compassion, fairness, etc
J0shReed 1 month ago
@J0shReed LOL!!!
You sifted out the gnat but gulped down the camel.
Excuses do not equal answers, particularly if they are nothing more than abstract conjecture, without foundation or credibility, hence the questions still stand.
But here is one for you, why do up to 58% of so called religious people fail to live up to the doctrine of their religion yet 100% of atheists fail to live up to their atheist doctrine?
Answers on postcards please.
SonofThunder120 1 month ago
@SonofThunder120 Locate me this atheist doctrine and I will tell you. Atheists don't even have to believe evolution is true. If you're a "non-astrologer" for example, that means you don't believe in astrology. This doesn't give any insight in to what that person does believe. You can't say, well since you don't believe in astrology, you must like to gamble, or you have to like sushi.
Make up some more incoherent questions and perhaps all humor you with a response.
J0shReed 1 month ago
@J0shReed Erm, it seems you cannot answer any of the questions posed thus far, perhaps I will have to condescend to your level and approach you with a Janet & John type logic.
Atheism by implication leads to evolution, there exists no other option. Its either intelligent design or evolution.
So here is my Janet & John question for you please explain the "Cambrian explosion?"
No matter how much airfreshener you spray on feces, it remains feces & will like feces in a short while
SonofThunder120 1 month ago
@SonofThunder120 I'm quite certain I answered all of your questions (if you can call them that). Simply saying I didn't doesn't win you any points friend.
Because theories on it are in the infant stage we must accept god as the answer? Surely in history we have never been baffled by a problem only to have the answer revealed in time. (Dramatic Gasp!)
I take it back, you're right. It's so obvious now. The only reasonable explanation is that Wotan did it. Thank you.
J0shReed 1 month ago
@J0shReed OK, so you have not taken the time to study either subject but plagiarise the comments of atheists/evolutionists.
So here is my starter for 10,
explain the origins of DNA & RNA?
From where did this unique complete code originate?
Explain the paradox of RNA in DNA?
I really cannot make it any more simple for you.
You see, I go by the evidence & the evidence SHOUTS design!
Yet you defend theory, but which one? There are so many!
SonofThunder120 1 month ago
@SonofThunder120 So wait... I'm arguing against a deist?
I don't have really many objections to the theory of a deistic view other than it's not really necessary. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sorry by the way that studying for complete knowledge of everything science has ever said is a little bit harder than studying for god's science test which the answer is just "god did it" for all questions. I'm obviously the lazy one.
J0shReed 1 month ago
@SonofThunder120 Also, evidence? all you have done is attack counter evidence. You haven't used any positive evidence at all. Things look designed because they were designed, over billions of years by explorable natural processes.
Your argument is because science doesn't know something, god is the only answer to that. Ha! the Cambrian layer is an unusual phenomena! Check mate! God exists!
Ummm okay? Doesn't even merit a response.
J0shReed 1 month ago
The hypotheses for the origin and complexity of the genetic code are to long to explain on youtube. Open any general college Biology textbook and you will get a primer on abiogenesis and the hypotheses that involve the topic. They also explain some experiments that support them, there's much more in other sources btw. Even the Cambrian Explosion is explained in the average modern bio textbook.
And what design is there in the fact that DNA replication isn't 100% error-proof?
Cranopsis 1 month ago
@SonofThunder120 It has something to do with that people are pattern-seeking animals. When for an example the wind blows and you hear whistling of a bush, you might think that there is a predator in it, moving around trying to kill you. You will then naturally respond to it even when it is false. And if there really was an predator and you survived - you will automatically be more careful, but also your mind will be more easily deluded next time it occurs. Watch Shermer on TED
ommaercool 1 month ago
I can't believe how many comments I've seen saying that Lennox won the "Has Science Buried God?" debate with Dawkins - he was absolutely outperformed by far in that debate. Lennox is however one of the only people other than WLC who I seen give Hitchens a bit of a decent fight back. Clearly he's a very smart guy. I couldn't be bothered watching the rest of this debate though - Shermer just isn't as good to listen to as Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins, although he seems like a decent guy.
jacderida 2 months ago
it is interesting that many of the questions are directed to Lennox, instead of Shermer. perhaps because they know nothing can be discussed by atheism worldview. This also show that people, no matter what they believe in, are hoping for an answer for the thing they struggle with.
lymalt 2 months ago
Lennox, Like William Lame Craig, understands that if you make a big enough pile of steaming logical fallacies they will eventually collapse and drown rational people in an oozing mudslide of stupid.
I cannot believe the stream of utter inanities spewing from Lennox's mouth. Has he no shame?
Terncote 2 months ago
@K11IKB Said me, and Gravija is definitely accurate with his description... "babbling"
PerplexingMango 2 months ago
i have never seen lennox debate before and i was really excited, given his credentials. i am very disappointed that his arguments are recycling the same stock arguments with emotional appeal that less well informed religious people have already put forth (and have been dunked time and time again).
bebopuk 3 months ago
@bebopuk because there really isn't much to argue for the theist side
PerplexingMango 2 months ago
I'm 18. If that's what you consider "old man" then you probably don't have business speaking here
PerplexingMango 3 months ago
What in the world is this old man babbling about??
Gravija1980 3 months ago
And that's the reality of anyone who debates on the side of theism -- the only resource they can depend upon are straw man fallacies and emotional appeal. There is no definite truth behind any of their arguments -- IN FACT GET THIS: every single SOUND, VALID argument stated by an atheist is AVOIDED by the theist because they simply can't argue against solid facts
PerplexingMango 3 months ago
Here's the straw man: Lennox distorts Shermer's argument to make it seem as if Shermer was saying this instead: God doesn't exist because science doesn't prove it. -- Then Lennox goes off explaining how SOMETHING must have created this universe because it's too complex to explain and that it MUST be God because that's what all of the "holy" scriptures say and a plethora of random, probably unreliable people say- THIS EXACT ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING THAT SHERMER HAD DISPROVED IN HIS SPEECH -Straw man
PerplexingMango 3 months ago
WHICH argument was a straw man you mean? You want someone to cite it? Okay here you go: The Great Debate: Lennox vs Shermer 3/10 from 0:00 - 9:56. Shermer's MAIN argument was that God is NOT an explanation for everything we don't know -- in fact there are many different ways to explain how we got where we are and the idea of "God" does NOT have any more plausibility than the idea of multiple universes or the idea of being created by an alien species far more intelligent than we are
PerplexingMango 3 months ago
Great, philosophers from hundreds of years ago and thousands of years ago with little scientific knowledge is somehow helping your argument? 85% of Australians believe in a god? 100% of ancient greeks believed in Thor? So what? People believe what they want. This guy is all emotional evidence, aka nothing.
Gazmanaust 3 months ago
Lennox the `IF ` man just talks utter bollocks.
naybobdenod 3 months ago
An empirically proven god, isn't God. If you consider empirical evidence as the only sort, then you are wasting time. This is wheel spinning.
m1chae15 3 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
This has been flagged as spam show
Didn't Dr. Shermer admit the possibility of an infinitely powerful being, with, remember, INFINITE, power over the material? Infinite power? "Well, yeah, that'll be us."
How do you know that someone didn't evolve there first?
Dr. Shermer, Mormon apologist and emissary to the secular world.
m1chae15 3 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
Comment removed
m1chae15 3 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
Re: his diatribe about morality. Again, there is plenty of evidence that this has evolved in us through evolution (in our genes) as well as our environment. It's not purely genes, it's not purely environment; it's a combo. You still don't need a god. The free-will argument though is a complicated one.
tunkul59 3 months ago
Citing penzias, a nobel prize winning physicist, and his belief in god, is no proof that god exists. It was just an opinion.
tunkul59 3 months ago
Hmm, so at one point the vast majority of people believed the earth was flat. So citing that 81% of australians believe in god, is no evidence that god exists.
tunkul59 3 months ago
I feel like crying. Out of frustration.
oabonagoitsemang 3 months ago
Why is the word of one religious-minded scientist taken against the word of millions of scientists with a common consensus of opinion against that stance? Creationists do this every time and think they have something significant...
ElijahBailey2000 3 months ago
@ElijahBailey2000 There are also millions of scientists who believe in a God, not just one. It works the same both ways.
emurdoch100 3 months ago
Lennox is a very poor debater is is using all the arguments that Shermer said he would in his opening speech.
andygray 3 months ago
@andygray ......he uses them and proves them to be good arguments. You shouldn't attack his debating skills just because you disagree with his views. It causes your side of the argument to lose credibility.
flamencodpv 3 months ago
@flamencodpv What is my side? I just said that Lennox is a poor debater. As as Christian I would like to see a bit more intelligence used to debate an intelligent atheist like Shermer his arguments fail massively and do a disservice to anyone who believes in Christianity
andygray 3 months ago
@andygray ....I made the assumption you backed the claims made by Shermer, so my bad. However, I still take exception to your claim that Lennox is a poor debater. He is actually fielding a great majority of the questions from audience members wishing to stump him while Shermer sits back and chimes in with a quip every so often. I'd say he did all the work and a good job at that.
flamencodpv 3 months ago
@andygray how is lennox a poor debator? Im not atheist but if I was I would feel really stupid being one after hearing lennox talk. At the very least it would make me be agnostic. He leaves atheism with no ground to stand on and I see dawkins floundering about like a fish in a net when he debated lennox.
bridemusiccanada 3 months ago
@andygray Indeed your problem in this critique is that Shermer's casual dismissal was totally unwarranted.
It's actually juvenile. Another version of 'I knew you would say that!' It's not an argument. One of the usual Atheist rhetorical mistakes is to simply say, 'oh those things are rubbish, we all know that!'
The fact is the arguments from complexity, meaning, beauty, morality ARE valid arguments.
MrWildbill20056 3 months ago
One would have to be blinded by their own misguided world view in order to deny the overwhelming fact that this world is designed and that designer is the Lord Jesus. Who created all things for Himself.
TheDoctrineofgrace 4 months ago in playlist More videos from PublicChristianity
For the truth about religion try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life ' or John W. Loftus or Victor J. Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' . Also interesting to have a look at the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani, with its god Osiris who weighs the heart to decide who can pass to the land of the living.[ The need to know the names of the gods & the negative confession & other magic texts to get there]. James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'
zytigon 4 months ago
Lennox, let me use your own bible to answer your moral questions " Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial " this includes torture... its permissible as noone including life/god doesn't step in to stop it. But its not beneficial to the person being torturted or us humanity. We must determine that, and in many ways we have but years ago we never and torture was part of life ( look at old england ) morals have evolved!
myfacevids 4 months ago
Lennox, blah blah blah... book says.. blah blah blah... proves nothing
myfacevids 4 months ago
Lennox, get off the failboat
johnalton22 4 months ago
Religion is myth, superstition and a lot of bullshit.
Hektor7788 4 months ago
@Hektor7788 Atheism is myth, superstition and a lot of bullshit. I'm assuming this statement really annoyed you and that you're thinking "this guys is an idiot." I don't think you're an idiot, but your prior statement was uncalled for. Your statement doesn't encourage discussion, but rather, shuts the door to open debate.
jensenc86 3 months ago
@jensenc86 You are assuming wrong. I dont know you, so i dont know if you are an idiot. You are probably a great person. I still think religion is all that. You can believe in God or gods and not be religious.
Hektor7788 3 months ago
@Hektor7788 What is your definition of religion?
jensenc86 3 months ago
@jensenc86 a set of common beliefs and practices pertaining to the supernatural (and its relationship to humanity and the cosmos). Its a way some people have of explaining this world.
Hektor7788 3 months ago
It's interesting to see the Lennox is doing exactly what Shermer said you have to do. Put forth a number of amazing things and attribute not only to a god but his god. Not only that, he uses the placeholder "supernatural." Then he appeals to authority by referencing nobel-price winners. Also, correlates the progress of science with a personal religion. Does the genius of Newton validate alchemy?
pinkdeath82 4 months ago
Is Lennox saying that ignorant tribal bigotted people of over 2500 years ago used reason and their senses to understand "the given" that a deity exists??? That's the most idiotic opening I have ever heard! Guess they used the same senses and reason to determine disease are devils inhabiting our bodies and earthquakes are gods fighting among themselves or just ticked off that we have offended them in some way. It's scary that he could literally go back in time and fit in with their beliefs!
BigDiamondCutter 4 months ago
atheists comments always seem to be vile with so much sexual derision and perversion - I don't believe they can help it though/
whiteliketar 4 months ago
@whiteliketar That is quite a large generalization....
Vocizo 4 months ago
@whiteliketar and what about the catholic priests that have been abusing little boys? Talk about sexual peversion there perhaps?
Spunn3d 4 months ago
@Spunn3d this is such a shallow argument - the Catholic church has long being infiltrated by homosexuals and pedophiles - If you are an atheist you should love them -atheism has no problem with this vile unatural behaviour - the question you should ask is were these people obeying Christ or disobeying? Christ himself said if any should cause those little ones to go astray it would be better for a stone to put around the the neck of the perpetrator and him being thrown in the sea. Jesus wins
whiteliketar 4 months ago
Lennox sounds like a desperate man with no reasonable or logical argument.
MrWagman11 5 months ago
Lennox is proof that emotional blind spots, fear, early childhood indoctrination, and wishful thinking can make someone who may otherwise be brilliant come off like a total putz. His argument comes down "doesn't everything seem so complex, beautiful, and meaningful to you fellow primates? well then god must exist and plenty of other notable primates agree!"
I use the term primate to emphasize that complexity, meaning, etc in the context of this debate are entirely subjective.
MrShysterme 5 months ago
the christian debator won
CyprusHot 5 months ago
@CyprusHot Are you fucking kidding?
MrShysterme 5 months ago
ive watched all these debates and i ve come to the conclusion that atheists are just shooting arrows at God. Work that one out for yourselves.
purpleduke77 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 Change that to the god concept, and you might be onto something.
MrShysterme 5 months ago
@MrShysterme That's interesting that you should use a little g meaning any number of gods, i was referring to shooting arrows at the one God, the one Dawkins, Hitchens and the likes must try and kill at all costs.
purpleduke77 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 Sorry, you are just merely asserting that, much like Lennox does here.
MrShysterme 5 months ago
@MrShysterme So can you tell me why they are on a quest to destroy faith in God then? why dont they take up another hobby, what's there motive?
purpleduke77 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 How can I tell you why someone else does something? How could they "destroy faith in God" (especially an omnipotent one if it exists)? Do you want me to simply come up with a plausible speculation? Okay. How about they see faith as inferior to reason in how it inevitably affects society as a result of individual actions? How about they want to show that atheism is at least as reasonable (and likely more so) then theism so that people have additional thought choices?
MrShysterme 5 months ago
How can you tell why someone else does something? Well then, how can you tell anything about a persons genuine faith? If your Gonna couple say a Gahndi or mother Thereasa with the 9/11 hyjackers or islamic fundamentalists then youve ended all possible debate. Do you mind if i lump you in with all the atrocoties that have been commited by atheists?
purpleduke77 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 Huh? Because people will sometimes tell you about their faith? Did I lump anyone in with anything? No. Dude, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you are dumb as a box of fucking rocks. Now piss off and go stick a piece of broken glass in your asshole.
MrShysterme 5 months ago
Some people might have told u about their faith but I and many others havent told you anything about ours? yes you have lumped us together by stating our faith is "inferior to reason in how it inevitibly affects society" You oviuosly must be the lower end of the evolutionary scale probably just below an ameba, you cant even enter into a debate without resorting to abusive laguage, you told me to piss off yet it was you who first messaged me. Your a typical atheist, ur brains r in ur bolox.
purpleduke77 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 I was speaking of faith as a concept, meaning belief without evidence.Your faith, as you put it, is your particular theological pattern which is not at all what I meant and that should have been obvious to a thinking person. I messaged you to tell you that you are wrong, and then you proceeded in like fashion. People like you who are incapable of realizing when you are wrong deserve to be treated roughly. A final question: does an all-knowing god know what my semen tastes like?
MrShysterme 5 months ago
True faith isn't just a concept its more real and solid, its a deep conviction of the soul, my faith is not a theological pattern as u have took the liberty to describe, dont analize me with ur science. You messaged me to tell me im wrong, what if your wrong? Does an all knowing god know what semen tastes like? i wouldnt know there's thousands of them., but i do know that God knows what ever we know and you must know what semen tastes like so he must he, God knows every cock sucker.
purpleduke77 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 Some words have several meanings.You tell the appropriate one via context or by asking.In this case the definition I was using was obvious, and then I further corrected you on this point. If you redefine a word and then continue on with that definition, then we are not talking about the same thing whatsoever.Therefore, whatever you say is beside the point.Even within your definition of faith,your deep conviction is based on no actual evidence,just emotion.
MrShysterme 5 months ago
@purpleduke77 This is very important information. God knows what every vagina on earth feels like as well. Wow, what a lucky deity. Ever think this is the reason for his creation?
MrShysterme 5 months ago
lol part 1 & 2 had mostly likes, then this guy comes on and a lot of dislikes
gotitans999 5 months ago
richard dawkins saids that there moste be intelligence design???never, and over my dead body he had never say that , lennox is liying where does he take that from
mystisme 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The theistic "argument" falls apart like a cheap suit.
TeenTwinkTween 6 months ago
@Cynicleese strawman? Whatever you want to call it, the argument is valid and used by atheists as well to belittle religion
semitope 6 months ago 2
If this is the best Lennox can do, the debate is over.
chansetwo 6 months ago
@Cynicleese What argument was a straw man? I've heard atheists pull that card time and time again, and never cite what they're talkinga bout.
Damonferal 6 months ago
i tried. i really did. it's just too stupid to listen to.
uppitycracka 6 months ago
@uppitycracka Yes, you do find yourself drifting off when lennox is speaking and actually listening to shermer, no?
MrShysterme 5 months ago
Is there anything relevant at all to what this man has said in this video clip? Where is the focus of his opening statements? He's all over the place "because we have this, thats prooof of god. "Because this guy said that, thats proof for god." This guy hasn't said anything with substance for almost 10 minutes. Matter a fact, Shermer's opening statement debunks everything this lost mind had said during the whole debate. It's just pathetic.
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
Appeal to authority anyone?
CyrusGerand 6 months ago
@Cynicleese Absolutely not what he said at all. 7:39 "You don't believe you're hearing this stuff time and time again." I don't believe you listened to this at all.
nacker 6 months ago
Comment removed
trstenik100 7 months ago
He uses Flew as an example? That's quite sad. He clearly hasn't kept up with Flew's situation...
kfk4life 7 months ago
It's my belief, that before Atheists have these discussions with believers, the believers need to decide which among them is really right. As soon as that's done, we can have a discussion.
jojogonzo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy is a fucking retard! lol
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
moronic christian nonsense...
WHY SHOULD THE UNIVERSE EXPLAIN ITSELF TO ANYONE?!?!?!?
is this an intelligent argument????
din80s 7 months ago
self-deluding 'rationalized' irrationally is SO disgusting that words fail - over and over ... (skip this screed and move on the actual expression of an actual thought)
lonewolfmtnz 8 months ago
Lennox exclusively uses undefended baseless assertions, and arguments from authority. There is no actual argument here to respond to.
vonclausenton 8 months ago
I'm struck by how easy Dr. Shermer was to listen to and understand, and immediately how much more effort is required to follow Lennox. Lennox is in the first 3 minutes already sounding like he is preaching.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox, oh my, no wonder you are an athiest. Simple things are too complicated.
thespybreaker 8 months ago
@thespybreaker Nice how you lead with an insult......your religion is really doing it's job.
And by the way, I'm not an atheist.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@thespybreaker
No wonder you are theist. Simple explanations of complicated things are for the simple.
trstenik100 7 months ago
@trstenik100 - Ironic. You just provided a simple explanation for something that is complicated. No wonder your an athiest. You cannot even understand simple things.
thespybreaker 7 months ago
@thespybreaker
You're too complicated... I can't understand you... you must be God itself!
trstenik100 7 months ago
@trstenik100 thanks for the compliment. Now go back to school.
thespybreaker 7 months ago
@thespybreaker The god of crap!
trstenik100 7 months ago
@trstenik100 please go to the rest room if it is that urgent. Thank you.
thespybreaker 7 months ago
@thespybreaker ...while you remain at the altar with verbal diarrhea!
trstenik100 7 months ago
The moment our mind respons we are off the road...because our mind cannot respond to the Gods given reality..mind sees already an illusion and from this illusion creates more illusion...that is the sad plight of every man...
clovek456 8 months ago
If you don't like what Lennox says, you don't like truth.
HolyRevelation 8 months ago
@HolyRevelation hahahahahahahaahaah
ScottBrown666 8 months ago
The sections with Shermer, high thumbs up to down ratio, Lennox not so much.
kenzie0201 8 months ago
book is start of science . . . ok i will see where you are going with that
MostlyMoseley 8 months ago
@Cynicleese and most atheists think that apparently being religous means you're some kind of evil, retrograd, ignorant, delusional bigot who's willing to burn everyone who disagrees with him, and supports a belief that apparently has caused every tragedy in the world. You don't believe you're hearing this stuff time and time again.
If youre gonna talk about falling back on straw men, check the internet atheists first, specially the youtube ones.
Redfield92 8 months ago
@Cynicleese and for most atheists, being religous means you're some kind of ignorant delusional bigot who discriminates against people who don't agree with his beliefs and is incapable of reasoning at all.
if you're gonna talk about falling back on straw men, check the internet atheist first, especially the youtube ones.
Redfield92 8 months ago
The word "evidence" actually means something. You can't just define it any way you want. Feelings and experiences are not, by definition, "evidence." Neither, contrary to many opinions, is hear-say.
belodeau 8 months ago
Lennox's entire repertoire of 'evidence' is revolved around the thoughts & opinions of other people. The philosophers he quotes were ended up being wrong on some of their theories, & while they were great scientific minds theyre human & their opinions are not fact.
As for the Nobel Prize winner... the Nobel Peace Prize has lost much of its asthetic value of recent, especially when Obama won it just after reigniting an continually illegal war.
Anyways, Lennox = FAIL.
mrbenderson005 9 months ago
As opposed to Shermer, who did not use ANY credible references? I find it perplexing that you would deny Lennox's statement, rich with logical, historical, scientific and theological citations; and instead affirm Shermer's statement. Shermer's argument consisted of a few intellectually inaccurate jokes, a portion on the multiverse theory (itself lacking any 'evidence') and ended by suggesting that God cannot be God because people's arms don't grow back. Shermer's opener was cringeworthy.
aantoine1 8 months ago
@aantoine1
Shermer was the first one that went, I think you're confusing the two. Surely, you don't think that this man's opening statements were anything you claimed them to be. Rich with logical, historical, and scientific citations? The bible is rich of proven historical events and scientific evidence? The bible? It's obvious you are bias against the intelligent and rationale.
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
@mrbenderson005 if I may conclude: If you don't consider ANY external thoughts and opinions as evidence; how can you think that anything outside of your own existence is true? - including anything historical, or scientific that you haven't discovered for yourself.
We rely on the thoughts of others in order to discern what is true based on how it relates to other thoughts, logic and ultimately (if you are a theist) the word of God. You cannot define objective truth as a stand alone human entity.
aantoine1 8 months ago
@aantoine1 Your logic is fallacious. Consider a respected judge who felt that a suspect was guilty, and since people value his/her opinion, they all feel the suspect guilty too. But despite how he feels, the lawyers provide evidence proving that he is infact innocent of the crime charged. When it comes to figuring out who's guilty, the judge's opinion could not have meant less, because it was not backed by any substantial evidence...
mrbenderson005 8 months ago
@aantoine1 ...Once upon a time all of the world's most respected opinions were that the world was flat and that colored people were 3/4 human, and they were dead wrong.
Evidence requires fact, reason, or some tangible way of measuring a given premise. An opinion lacking these things merits no value with respect to evidence, & even an interpretation based on evidence still is not as important as the evidence itself.
Lennox lacked even interpretation based on evidence so he turned to opinion
mrbenderson005 8 months ago
@mrbenderson005 You've completely misunderstood what I've said and I apologize if my original comment wasn't clear. Although I do find your statement that my "logic is fallacious" a little harsh and misguided, especially considering that your counter 'judge' argument is in essence exactly the same as my original post i.e. - you cannot define truth based on your own thought; you need a law and evidence presented by others in order to make a judgement.
aantoine1 8 months ago
@mrbenderson005 Furthermore, I cannot see why you needed to stress that "all opinion once thought the earth was flat" - i found this VERY patronizing, not to mention historically incorrect; and even though this is WAY off topic, i would like to point out that as far back as ancient greek philosophy man suggested the earth was spherical. I agree with you when you say that evidence requires fact and reason and based on these factors I found Lennox's argument a lot more persuasive.
aantoine1 8 months ago
@mrbenderson005 Finally I would just like to say that historical documentation is considered fact - you mediate it the same you would any other science. This topic is a lot larger than youtube, but I would like to say that if you are only looking for material evidence to make a conclusive decision, then you are going to find a lot of contradictions in your thinking - at least consider looking at the ontological. I don't disregard your right to an opinion and I respect your desire to voice it.
aantoine1 8 months ago
This is hard to listen to.
twooffour 9 months ago 12
@twooffour No doubt. Truth hurts.
GospelHouseKat 8 months ago
@GospelHouseKat
So does bullshit.
twooffour 8 months ago
@twooffour
Agreed
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
@twooffour There's a lot of good A.D.D. medication out there.
Damonferal 6 months ago
Gag, bag, and ship this joker away after 4:50.
bottledsoul 10 months ago
hes not actually committing an appeal to authority fallacy... he is just reading evidence with good credentials. there is a huge difference people... should he have read evidence from some christian person with no credentials, you would have blasted that... because you have a predisposition against this guy, anything he says will be pure crap to you...
pianoboypiano 10 months ago
hes not actually committing an appeal to authority fallacy... he is just reading evidence with good credentials. there is a huge difference people...
pianoboypiano 10 months ago
got to love a Christian debater who quotes the bible for evidence. Talk about doing all the work for atheism.
sidewinderxx 10 months ago
Wow, Lennox didn't understand the "selfish" genes is just a metaphor Dawkins use to explain how evolution works.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Wow! You didn't even understand this either. Incredible. Not only is Lennox familiar with Dawkins books, but they also taught in the same facilities. Not only does Lennox understand the metaphor, he was making one of his own. Do you make a habit of shooting yourself in the foot, or is this a new thing for you?
lamuziq 10 months ago
@lamuziq He is familiar with fallacies, that's for sure; with Dawkins books, he doesn't seem to be. He quote mined Dawkins, by taking his "selfish genes" analogy and attacking it as if it were a moral philosophy, which it isn't. Anyways, comparing an avalanche to genes makes no sense. I really doubt he read the book if that is all he understood about it.
You should watch the video again, but pay attention this time. ;)
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Exactly the point. He was attacking the lack of moral philosophy. Given your statements below I'm not shocked you missed this point as well. It's incredible watching atheists struggle to discuss topics that are so overwhelming beyond their grasp they are left with false truisms and blatant lies.
lamuziq 10 months ago
@lamuziq Then he is misinterpreting Dawkins.
It's amazing that Lennox doesn't realizes the amount of strawmans he uses when he attacks "the new atheists". Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s). It doesn't imply a moral philosophy which every atheist would have to follow. It's very easy to understand.
There are some interesting debates between theists and atheists about morality here in YT, you should watch those, if you haven't already.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
Did Lennox really say that the bible is the origin of science.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Are you joking? Even Richard Dawkins says that - Anyone who knows the antiquity > alchemy > chemistry, et cetera. of science (ie' the origins of science) knows that it came from religion and most of all The Bible. Do your history before you question someone who clearly is more well versed on the subject. Not to mention The Bible is responsible for making more people literate then every other book on earth combined....Teaching people mathematics, language, writing, philosophy, etc.
lamuziq 10 months ago
@lamuziq Yeah, there isn't a shred of science in the bible. Show mathematics in the bible and a may believe you. alchemy, in the bible? where? I'm not saying the bible is useless, but that it isn't the origin of science nor a decent attempt at it.
Other cultures, advanced those topics you mentioned (mathematics, language, etc...) way before the bible was written so people didn't need the bible to learn those things.
You should do your history before saying that to others.
DaGavinX 10 months ago
Comment removed
lamuziq 10 months ago
@DaGavinX Holy crap....I can't even wrap my head around some peoples stupidity. It's so obvious you've never read The Bible, let alone, taken a course on theology. If you didn't know there is mathematics, alchemy, philosophy and science in The Bible then there is no point in talking to you. Not to mention I never said it was the origin of math, that's the Babylonians and Egyptians. I've done plenty of reading on the subject, clearly, you have not. It's sad listening to someone spread such crap.
lamuziq 10 months ago
@lamuziq Of course there's alchemy in the bible. They take ignorance, mix it with gullibility and get three wise men.
sidewinderxx 10 months ago
@lamuziq p.s. holy crap is a great way to describe the bible
sidewinderxx 10 months ago
@lamuziq Again, you have to pay attention. Lennox said that the bible (specifically the creation story) was the origin of science. That's what bothered me.
Probably if a took a course in theology I could see statistical thermodynamics in the bible.
DaGavinX 10 months ago 2
Hey, he was nobel prize winner! A nobel pirze!!! so he's right.
No bigger fallacy than argument by authority. Plain pathetic. But, since we''re in that line of thought, make a survey about all scientific nobel prize winners and their theological position. The overwhelming majority are agnostic and atheist. Do we bring that up? No, because it isn't an argument. It's not important for this discussion. this guy's a joke!
bernytheman 11 months ago
While Anthony Flew abandoned atheism he has vacillated on his position more than once. He specifically stated he has no use for Christianity and doesn't believe in the Christian God. If anything he has embraced a deist god. He also has admitted to NOT keeping up on the latest scientific understandings of the origin of the universe. His "de conversion" from atheism seems to be a rather impotent argument for the existence of god. But nice try Lennox.
burkerow 11 months ago
@burkerow It wasn't a nice try. It was pathetic. Par for the course really for all theists in these debates.
OneAtheist1 11 months ago
Bravo !
blopajmbar62 11 months ago
Lennox with all his "Spinozases", "Kanteses", "reasoningnessess" don't answer the most simple question: "Who cares?".
nonseans 11 months ago
Skip to 9:56 to save 9:56 minutes of your life...
dzntms144 11 months ago
@dzntms144 Good advice. It's just another very poor argument by a theist.
OneAtheist1 11 months ago
At 0:00 my brain started to hurt...
dzntms144 11 months ago
'Tis the problem in the use of selected writings as "revelation" in arguments. You simply do a high school statistical analysis & the Christian God = Zeus. And if you moved into the more complex, "regression" arguments, it is pure gibberish. "I didn't say it; God said it. He said he has always existed; and that he created everything; it's stated HERE in this Holy Text." Just 4 year-old arguments, when caught fighting. "I didn't do any thing. He started first!"
HenryDavidT 11 months ago
Lennox doesn't do very well here. Appeals to authority and some irrelevant points. He's much better suited to debating Dawkins (probably why he refers to him so much here). I'd like to hear Shermer talk with a more qualified mind.
DancingTableLeg 11 months ago
" But its a matter of which Religion to agree with more."
Sure, but your biases of what religion your parents are and what country you grew up in and other influences that will shape your idea of what religion to be a part of has literally no baring on the actual truth of that religion. You are still taking a gamble with hell, so it is silly to pose that to Atheists as if you are not in the same boat as us. That was why I found the original statement so ludicrous.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
BTW, please pardon my spelling and grammar it is very late and I am dog tired.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
God literally instructs many people to kill babies in the First Testament.... that does not sound like a charcter who cares about a child's innocoence, especially since the bible clearly states that babies are born NOT innocoent in the first place. It sounds like you are the one who does not know your bible.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
(contd) would have any leaniency on young children? We are talking about a deity who would TORTURE GOOD PEOPLE FOR ETERNITY in brutal and sick and disgusting ways.... why would you trust him to have any leniency on children, especially when the bible does not say he would? I think that is your own morality at work, morality you do not take from the bible, and I agree with it, only it is not scripturally accurate.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:5
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
"I'm not basing my religion off of its consequences."
Then why are you making the suggestion that it is foolish to risk going to hell by me being an Atheist? You are simply appealing to the idea of belief out of fear. I am not misunderstanding you, I am just confused as to why you would bring up hell as a deterrent for non-belief, if you were not represnting it as a primary reason for why one should not be an Atheist. I also just debunked Pascal's wager so it's silly when people bring it up.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I am not represnting hell as an objective matter for accepting Christianity. I am considering it as a subjective matter. Christianity isn't one of fear and anxiety and so forth, but accepting the Biblical scripture as truth, and knowing thereof about God and his works. Subjectivally, Hell seems important. I think it just strengthens my faith a bit to know that if Christianity IS all-truthful, then I will nto be going to hell.
koolio669 1 year ago
"Why take the chance if Christianity is true? Burn in hell forever or ..."
Your point was simple. It requires no further explanation. You seem to have missed my point however whilst you were giving Pascal's wager. Why take the chance if Islam is true? If they are right YOU will burn in hell forever, as a Christian. I am assuming you are not going to become a Muslim just in case, but my point is that we are all in danger of hellfire, you as much as I. So your original comment was dumb.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 This is true, but you cannot be two religions, friend. So, I guess it WAS a neutral statement to the point of probability. But its a matter of which Religion to agree with more.
koolio669 1 year ago
@koolio669 Also, the bible is very clear that all babies are born wicked with original sin. I do not think that your god would consider wicked sinful humans to be innocent by his own standards, so why would he take pity on them?
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
So if Atheists are wrong they are judged by God and burn forever in hell, everlasting pain? Not really a chance I want to take.
koolio669 1 year ago
@koolio669 So if Christians are wrong and the Muslims are right, Christians are going to burn forever in hell, writhing in everlasting pain. That doesn't sound like a chance you should take either.... I think it is pathetic if your best reason for belief is cowardly bet-hedging, and it is pathetic that human beings can be reduced to basing their entire lives on a fear of something that has nothing to support it's existence.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 My reason for being a Christian is not out of fear or anxiety and so forth. And I was pretty much just saying this: Why take the chance if Christianity is true? Burn in hell forever or ...well, whatever Atheists believe after death. I'm not basing my religion off of its consequences.
koolio669 1 year ago
@koolio669 You also seem to forget that if the Christians are correct, not only every Atheist will be eternally tortured, but every Jew, every Hindu, every Muslim, every Taoist, every Deist, and all of those men and women's little innocent children and babies... and this is all assuming you picked the correct SECT of the Christian faith. What if the Mormons are right? What if the Catholics are right? What if Jehova's witnesses are right? It's a situation where you are almost guaranteed screwed!
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I'm quite sure that God will grant amnesty to infants and children. 'Correct sect of Christianity'. Well I can pick some out of the basket, such as Catholicism, which is completely corrupt as to its interpretations of the Bible. The Mormons belief? Quite idiotic when compared to the Bible, and not the one they self-edited. Jehova's witness is also in the same catagory of corruption; evidence by their fallacious misunderstandings of the religion.
koolio669 1 year ago
@koolio669 Where in the bible does it say that infants and children instantly go to heaven? They are technically Atheists themselves. In fact, every baby ever born, including you, was born an ATHEIST... they do not believe in a god. Can you counter that? From what you say you think that Catholics and Mormons and Jehovas witnesses are corrupt morons.... is there any Christian that you do agree with? I am sure they think the same of you, by the way.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 No baby born is any religion. An infant does not have the mental capacity to make its own choices on such ideas and therefore cannot be held to account of said things. And on the topic of the different denominations, Protestant is seemingly the most accurate biblically. I do indeed disagree with Catholics, and Mormons, and they disagree with me. But if you knew anything about the Bible, you would agree with me that the Heresy of these denom.'s, Biblically speaking is great.
koolio669 1 year ago
@koolio669 "No baby born is any religion." Exactly, they fit the definition of an Atheist: one who does not believe in a god. You say an infant does not have the mental capacity to make it's own choices, yet you still have not pointed out the passage in the bible that says they are not going to go to hell if they die as an infant or toddler or even a 4 year old. Why would you think that a god who would eternally torture mothers of children who were good people, just not Protestant,
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
While I'm posting. I don't belive in evil. I do belive in a varity of factors that make people do very bad things. But evil as a concept.... nup.
Nexius8 1 year ago
They said "intellegence" not God. See last part RE aliens. Proof of intellegence is not proof of god just intellegence. Assuming there is proof.
Nexius8 1 year ago